Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.276

Section 145(3) falls under section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 276 (Method of accounting) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 276 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 145(3) is CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (331 ITR 236), cited in 694 of the 3,640 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 145(3)

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

Kachwala Gems v. JCIT
288 ITR 10 · 2007 · Supreme Court
332
citing judgments

In a best judgment assessment, some guesswork is inherent, but the estimate must be fair and not arbitrary. Books of account can be rejected under Section 145(3) if the assessee fails to substantiate entries or prove the genuineness of transactions, leading to estimation of income.

CIT v. Simit P. Seth
38 Taxmann.com 385 · 2013 · High Court
278
citing judgments
CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad
72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court
272
citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali
90 ITR 271 · 1973 · Supreme Court
232
citing judgments

The Supreme Court established principles for best judgment assessments, stating that some guesswork is inevitable but the assessment must be bona fide, rational, and free from bias or capriciousness. An appellate authority cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Assessing Officer unless the AO's assessment is shown to be biased, irrational, vindictive, or capricious, especially when the assessee fails to provide proper accounts or counter-evidence.

CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar
263 ITR 610 · 2003 · High Court
212
citing judgments

When making an addition for unaccounted receipts, on-money, or non-genuine purchases/sales, the addition should be restricted to the estimated profit element embedded in such transactions, rather than the entire gross amount, particularly when evidence of corresponding expenditure is incomplete. This estimation often involves applying a net profit rate.

CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd.
299 ITR 1 · 2008 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

The project completion method and the percentage of completion method are both recognized methods for recognizing income from real estate contracts.

CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.
188 ITR 44 · 1991 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer has a duty to examine whether an assessee's books of account truly disclose the correct income and is not bound to accept the accounting system regularly employed by the assessee or methods followed in earlier years. Each assessment year is a distinct and self-contained unit for tax purposes.

Harigopal Singh v. CIT
258 ITR 85 · 2002 · High Court
203
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when an addition to income is made on an estimated basis without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted to cases where income is assessed on an estimate basis.

Judgments on Section 145(3)

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Pukhraj Ranka, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.291/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Jitendra Pukhraj Ranka, Surat. Prop Of M/S P Jitendra & Co., 304/A, Sumangal Appt., Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpj0571F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-I/11694/2018-19 Dated 27.03.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 23.03.2016. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Quashing Reopened Assessment Proceedings For Ay 2008-09. (Ii) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate Decision Of Larger Bench Of Hon'Ble Gujarat High Court In The Case Of A.L.A Firm Vs Cit, 189 (1991) Itr 285, Whereas The Hon'Ble High Court Has Held That The Jurisdiction Of The Ito To Reassess Income Arises If He Has Reassessed Based On Specific & Relevant Information Coming Into His

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 147Section 148

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. M/S. M.D. Infra Developers, Surat

In the result, Assessee’s appeal, in ITA No

ITA 3094/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3058 To 3059/Ahd/2016 & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3085/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2012-13 & 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2, 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3093 To 3094/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. M/S. M. D. Infra Developers, Surat. 128, Mamta Park Society, Kapodra, Varachha Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aasfm7357A (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mitish S. Modi, C.A & Shri Akshay Modi, Ca Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Captioned Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 69B